requirement that one-half of the total num-
ber of signatures must be presented within
30 days. In principle, this is the same as in
the present Constitution. In practice, it
makes it somewhat more difficult to suspend
the law, because the Committee has recom-
mended a five per cent rather than a three
per cent petition requirement.
As noted above, a group may take the
entire 60 days to produce the total number
of required signatures, without regard to
the thirty-day requirement, if it wishes
merely to refer a law, rather than to sus-
pend its effect.
The Committee agreed that those who
wished to petition legislation for refer-
endum ought to have some responsibility
for insuring that those who sign petitions
are registered voters. The Committee has
included the same provision that is in the
present Constitution. That is in section 4
of S&E-1. This requires a person procuring
the signatures to sign an affidavit that the
persons whose signatures he obains are
registered voters.
The Committee thinks that persons en-
gaged in suspending or referring a law are
participating in the legislative process, and
that this is a matter of considerable im-
portance.
The requirement of the affidavit has
worked satisfactorily in the past. It is con-
sidered to serve notice to those who adopt
petitions that this is an action of impor-
tance to all citizens of the state and as
such attaining of petition signatures ought
to be done in a responsible manner.
The present Constitution provides that a
majority vote on the referendum question
is sufficient to determine the outcome. The
Committee recommends that if the referred
law is rejected by a majority of those vot-
ing on the question, and the number of
voters voting on that question is not less
than one-fourth of the total number of
voters voting at such election, the law
shall stand repealed.
What this means is that it requires but
a simple majority, but that it is necessary
that 25 per cent of the people who go to
the polls that day cast a vote on the re-
ferred question.
The Committee recognized that in all
twelve questions previously submitted to
referendum by petition, the number of
voters voting on the question varied from
30 to 50 per cent. Thus, the provision rec-
ommended would have no restrictive effect.
Even so, the Committee wished to protect |
against the possibility that at some time
in the future a militant minority might
force its will upon an unsuspecting ma-
jority and reverse the actions of the repre-
sentatives of the people.
That covers the explanation of S&E-1,
but does not cover the Committee action
with reference to initiative, and I would
like to turn attention to that very briefly.
The Committee rejects the concept of
initiative and recommends it not be in-
cluded in the constitution. The Committee
believes that the greatest contribution that
the electorate can make to the legislative
process is to vote for capable candidates,
who will enact wise and just laws.
We have been spending these three long
and arduous days, I think, with the main
purpose of strengthening the legislature,
and, therefore, it seems that on the one
hand to strengthen the legislature, and on
the other to provide provisions for frivo-
lous threats or attacks on the legislative
acts, would be in a sense contradictory.
That concludes my presentation on
S&E-1.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the Committee Chairman for pur-
poses of clarification of Committee Recom-
mendation S&E-1?
Delegate Hostetter?
DELEGATE HOSTETTER: Madam
Chairman, I am just a little bit confused
with respect to the term "date of enact-
ment" of a law. Would that be the date
the governor signs it into law or would
that be the date that it was passed by the
General Assembly and presented to the gov-
ernor?
DELEGATE KOSS: We used the term
"date of enactment" to mean the date on
which a governor signed a bill into law on
the day to which a General Assembly over-
rode a gubernatorial veto. It has no refer-
ence to when it is passed by the General
Assembly, nor does it have any reference
to the effective date of a law.
If I could differentiate this way between
a law being enacted, signed by the governor
on July I, but actually not taking effect
until September I, we had no reference to
the September I date. We had reference
only to the date on which the governor
signed the bill, or when the legislature
overrode the veto.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hostetter?
DELEGATE HOSTETTER: I have one |
